Exploring Marginalization in Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: A Cultural Studies Perspective

 Exploring Marginalization in Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: A Cultural Studies Perspective

               

This blog examines the theme of marginalization in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead through the framework of Cultural Studies. It explores how both playwrights reveal the subordination of minor characters within dominant systems of power, and how these dynamics resonate with modern realities such as corporate hierarchies, globalization, and existential alienation. The discussion aims to highlight how literature not only mirrors the social and political structures of its time but also continues to illuminate contemporary experiences of disempowerment.

In this blog, I explore how Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead give voice to those pushed to the margins characters who exist on the edges of power. Using ideas from Cultural Studies, I connect their struggles to the modern world, where people often face similar hierarchies in workplaces, economies, and social systems. My goal is to show how these timeless stories still speak to our experience of invisibility and uncertainty today.Click here.

🧩 Introduction: Power, Margins, and Meaning

Marginalization is the quiet force that defines who speaks and who is silenced. Through the lens of Cultural Studies, it represents how societies (and their stories) push certain people to the periphery denying them identity, voice, and agency.

In Hamlet (1600) and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966), we see this dynamic unfold across centuries. Shakespeare presents the Renaissance court, a world of visible political power, while Stoppard reimagines it through existential absurdism. Both playwrights expose systems that use and discard “little people” in the name of order or meaning.

🎭 Marginalization in Hamlet

        

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter the stage not as individuals, but as functions “friends” summoned to spy, flatter, and report. Their personalities blur, their motives dissolve. They exist to serve the machinery of the court.

Hamlet himself captures their condition in one striking metaphor:

 “...he keeps them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw; first mouthed, to be last swallowed.”  Hamlet, Act IV

They are sponges absorbing the king’s favor until squeezed dry.

Their deaths, casually narrated (“They are not near my conscience”), show how power consumes and discards. In this, Shakespeare reveals how monarchy functions like a system that values obedience over being.

💼 From Elsinore to the Corporate World

In today’s terms, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern resemble corporate employees caught in a system that treats people as data points.

In Hamlet In Modern Workplaces

Serve Claudius’ political goals Serve corporate profit goals

Lack agency and full information Lack transparency in decisions

Expendable after use Disposable during layoffs

Obedience equals survival Compliance equals job security

Like “small annexments” of a “massy wheel,” they move when the larger mechanism turns whether that mechanism is the state or a multinational company. Their tragedy lies in being necessary but not valued.

⚙️ Stoppard’s Reimagining: From Political to Existential Marginalization

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard turns the spotlight on these forgotten men but instead of empowering them, he magnifies their existential emptiness.

They do not know who they are, where they are, or why they are here. Their every attempt to find purpose leads only to absurdity. In this modern world:

Meaning is scripted. They recite lines without context.

Agency is illusion. Their deaths are prewritten.

Existence is uncertain. Are they real, or only roles in someone else’s play?

Stoppard’s world echoes the alienation of modern life where people feel like replaceable actors in systems too vast to comprehend.

🧠 Cultural and Existential Power Structures

Shakespeare’s Hamlet Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Power Type: Monarchical, personal Power Type: Systemic, existential

Focus: Court politics, obedience Focus: Identity, absurdity

Marginalization: Social and political Marginalization: Philosophical and ontological

Critique: The powerful manipulate and discard Critique: The system erases individuality and meaning

Stoppard extends Shakespeare’s critique. Where Hamlet exposes visible tyranny, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead exposes invisible control the quiet erosion of identity under bureaucracy, capitalism, and modern alienation.

🧍‍♂️ Personal Reflection

Reading both plays through Cultural Studies made me realize that marginalization is not confined to royal courts. It thrives wherever systems value function over feeling from workplaces to classrooms to nations.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not merely tragic; they are uncomfortably familiar. They remind us how easily people can be reduced to tools, titles, or statistics in the name of “efficiency.”

🎬 Creative Engagement

Monologue: “Notice of Reassignment  Guildenstern Speaks”

 Ladies and gentlemen of Denmark Inc.,

Thank you for your commitment. Please be advised that your positions will be reassigned. We appreciate your loyalty. Please pack personal items and report to Docking Bay A.

We were told we were important once. “Come home,” they said. “Help us watch our mad prince.”

We came, briefcases open, dignity folded.

We asked small questions; we smiled the correct smiles.

Now there is a memo. It calls us “personnel adjustments.”

It calls us “cost centres.”

It calls us everything but human.

If there is a moral here, it is this:

Never mistake utility for love.

The kingdom that hires you will also erase you when the ledger says so.

We were not heroes. We were line items.

Be warned, employees of the world:

The wheel is big, and you are only an annexment.

Conclusion

From Hamlet’s court to Stoppard’s absurdist stage, marginalization evolves but never disappears.

Shakespeare revealed how individuals become pawns of political power; Stoppard revealed how modern existence itself can erase meaning.

Through the lens of Cultural Studies, both plays invite us to see literature as a mirror of power reminding us that being seen, heard, and valued is not a given, but a struggle repeated across time.

References :

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Project Gutenberg, 1999, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1524. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

“Thinking Activity: Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385301805_Thinking_Activity_Exploring_Marginalization_in_Shakespeare’s_Hamlet_and_Stoppard’s_Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Thank you...!!! 

Be learners. 

Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

         

This blog is written as part of the Thinking Activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir for the Cultural Studies module. It offers a cultural reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, tracing the novel’s revolutionary ideas and their enduring influence on modern thought. Divided into two sections “Revolutionary Births” and “The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture” the blog examines how Shelley’s creation continues to shape political, social, and philosophical debates from the nineteenth century to the digital era.Click here.

Introduction Frankenstein as a Cultural Text

This Thinking Activity, guided by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir, focuses on exploring Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein through the perspective of Cultural Studies. The novel, first published in 1818, is not only a landmark work of Gothic literature but also a rich cultural text that reflects the anxieties and aspirations of its age. By examining Frankenstein in relation to its political, philosophical, and social contexts, this study aims to understand how the novel challenges traditional ideas of creation, identity, and power.

The activity is divided into two parts  “Revolutionary Births” and “The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture” each highlighting different aspects of the novel’s continuing relevance. While the first part explores the revolutionary spirit of the 19th century that influenced Shelley’s imagination, the second part traces how the Frankenstein myth has evolved through various cultural forms such as fiction, drama, film, and television. Together, these sections reveal how Shelley’s creation continues to shape contemporary discussions about science, ethics, and what it means to be human.

Part -1: Revolutionary Birth :

1.The Creature as Proletarian

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was written during a period of intense social and political unrest in Europe, following the French Revolution and amid the rise of industrial capitalism. Shelley was deeply influenced by the radical ideas of her parents William Godwin, a political philosopher who advocated for social justice, and Mary Wollstonecraft, an early feminist as well as by the revolutionary writings of Thomas Paine. These influences shaped her vision of human freedom, equality, and the oppression created by hierarchical systems.

Within this context, the Creature can be seen as a symbol of the proletariat, or the working class. Like the oppressed masses, he is created by society but rejected by it, forced to live on the margins despite his desire for companionship, education, and acceptance. His creator, Victor Frankenstein, represents the ruling or intellectual elite those who possess knowledge and power but fail to take responsibility for the beings and systems they bring into existence.

The Creature’s paradoxical nature innocent at birth yet driven to vengeance by rejection and injustice mirrors the dual perception of the revolutionary classes in Shelley’s era. To the powerful, the poor and oppressed were often seen as dangerous and uncontrollable forces, but Shelley invites sympathy for their suffering and alienation. The Creature’s transformation from a gentle being into a violent rebel reflects how social neglect and exploitation can turn innocence into rage a theme that parallels the fears of revolution that haunted early 19th-century Europe.

From a Cultural Studies standpoint, this reading connects Frankenstein to broader discourses about class, power, and resistance. Shelley’s novel exposes the moral failures of a society that creates life or systems without compassion or accountability. Thus, the Creature becomes not just a monster in fiction, but a metaphor for the dehumanized working class, whose demand for recognition and justice continues to echo in modern social and political movements.

Reflection: The Creature’s Paradoxical Nature

The Creature in Frankenstein represents a profound paradox he is both innocent and vengeful, a victim and a rebel. This duality mirrors the complex social emotions surrounding revolution and the oppressed masses during Mary Shelley’s time. At first, the Creature is pure and kind-hearted, desiring only love, education, and belonging. However, constant rejection and cruelty from society turn him into a figure of anger and vengeance.

This transformation reflects societal fears of revolution: the idea that if the oppressed are pushed too far, they might rise violently against their oppressors. Shelley portrays the Creature’s rage not as innate evil, but as a reaction to injustice and alienation, encouraging readers to sympathize with his suffering rather than fear him. In doing so, the novel questions society’s moral responsibility suggesting that cruelty and inequality, not inherent corruption, create rebellion.

Thus, the Creature’s paradoxical nature becomes a powerful metaphor for the human cost of oppression. It reminds us that every act of social violence or revolution has its roots in a history of neglect, and that compassion and inclusion are the only true ways to prevent monstrosity.

2.A Race of Devils

In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley reflects 19th-century anxieties about race, colonialism, and the fear of the “Other.” The Creature, described as hideous and unnatural, becomes a symbol of how society demonizes those who are different racially, socially, or culturally. His exclusion mirrors the way European colonial powers dehumanized non-European peoples, labeling them as savage or monstrous to justify domination.

Victor Frankenstein, the ambitious creator, can be seen as embodying a colonial mindset he seeks to conquer nature, control life, and impose his power without considering moral consequences. Yet, like colonial empires, he faces guilt and destruction from his own creation. The Creature’s existence and rebellion reveal the moral cost of such domination.

Through this lens, Shelley’s novel critiques both racial prejudice and imperial arrogance, exposing how fear of the “Other” often arises from guilt, inequality, and the refusal to accept shared humanity.

Reflection: Race and Empire in Frankenstein

Shelley’s Frankenstein engages with ideas of race and empire by portraying the Creature as the ultimate “Other”rejected, feared, and dehumanized because of his difference. This mirrors the way imperial powers viewed colonized people as inferior or monstrous. Victor’s desire to dominate nature and create life reflects the colonial impulse to control and possess, while his guilt and downfall suggest the moral consequences of such power.

Today, these themes remain relevant in global discussions on race, privilege, and inequality. Shelley’s narrative reminds us how fear of difference still shapes social hierarchies, urging us to confront prejudice and recognize the shared humanity of all.

3.From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein bridges the gap between early natural philosophy and today’s world of biotechnology and artificial intelligence. In Shelley’s time, science was rapidly expanding, and Victor Frankenstein’s ambition to create life reflected both the promise and danger of unchecked scientific curiosity. The novel raises timeless ethical questions: What happens when human innovation surpasses moral responsibility?

In the modern age of genetic engineering, cloning, and AI, Frankenstein feels more relevant than ever. The Creature symbolizes humanity’s creations that may evolve beyond control, forcing us to reconsider what it means to be human. Shelley’s vision thus anticipates the dilemmas of the cyborg era, where technology blurs the boundary between life and machine, creator and creation.

Reflection: Science and Human Hubris

Modern scientific advancements  from genetic engineering to artificial intelligence  closely mirror Frankenstein’s warning against human hubris. Like Victor Frankenstein, today’s scientists and innovators often push the limits of creation without fully considering moral or social consequences. Shelley’s tale reminds us that knowledge without responsibility can lead to destruction, not progress. The lesson is timeless: true advancement must balance innovation with empathy, ethics, and accountability toward the life and world we shape. 

Suggested viewing:

Blade Runner (1982) - Film Tailer

Reflection: Blade Runner as a Modern Frankenstein

Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) reimagines Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in a futuristic, dystopian world. The film’s replicants bioengineered humans created by the Tyrell Corporation mirror Frankenstein’s Creature: artificial beings who long for identity, love, and freedom but are denied humanity by their creators.

Just like Victor Frankenstein, the scientists in Blade Runner play god, creating life without moral responsibility. The replicants’ rebellion symbolizes the consequences of human hubris and exploitation, echoing Shelley’s warning about unchecked scientific ambition.

Through its dark visuals and philosophical tone, Blade Runner transforms Frankenstein’s themes into a modern reflection on technology, ethics, and what it means to be human issues that remain deeply relevant in today’s age of AI and genetic engineering.

Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture

First Film Adaptation and Popular retellings

The Concept of Frankenphemes

The term “Frankenphemes,” coined by scholar Timothy Morton, refers to the recurring cultural symbols, images, and ideas derived from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein that continue to appear across diverse forms of media. These Frankenphemes manifest in films, literature, political discourse, and even scientific debates reflecting the novel’s deep influence on modern thought. From political speeches warning about the dangers of uncontrolled technology to controversies surrounding genetically modified organisms and artificial intelligence, Frankenstein remains a powerful metaphor for humanity’s complex relationship with creation, progress, and ethics. Through these reappearances, Shelley’s vision continues to shape how contemporary culture negotiates the boundaries between science and morality.

Reflection: First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings

The first cinematic adaptation of Frankenstein was produced by Edison Studios in 1910, marking the beginning of the novel’s long and evolving life on screen. Since then, Frankenstein has been retold in countless films, parodies, and adaptations from The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) to Young Frankenstein (1974) and modern reimaginings like Blade Runner and Ex Machina.

The story’s lasting impact lies in its universal themes: the desire to create, the fear of what we create, and the struggle to define what it means to be human. Each era reinterprets Shelley’s tale to reflect its own anxieties industrialization in the 19th century, nuclear power and technology in the 20th, and artificial intelligence and cloning in the 21st.

Frankenstein endures because it speaks to the timeless tension between innovation and morality, reminding us that human progress, without empathy and responsibility, can lead to self-destruction.

Reflection: Retelling and Reinterpreting Frankenstein

Over time, various retellings of Frankenstein have reshaped its message to address the fears and values of new audiences. While Mary Shelley’s original novel warned against unchecked scientific ambition and the moral cost of social rejection, modern adaptations reinterpret these ideas in the context of technology, artificial intelligence, and identity.

Films like Blade Runner and Ex Machina retain Shelley’s critique of creation without responsibility but transform it to reflect today’s anxieties about machines surpassing human control. Even parodies and cultural references keep alive the theme of the “outsider”the being society refuses to accept.

Thus, each adaptation both preserves and reinvents Shelley’s vision, showing that the dangers of isolation, arrogance, and dehumanization remain universal, even as science and society evolve.

References:

“A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature (5th Edition) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, New York : Oxford University Press, 1 Jan. 1970, archive.org/details/handbookofcritic0000unse_o8z0. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

“Frankenstein : Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical, Historical, and Cultural Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Contemporary Critical Perspectives : Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1797-1851, Author : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, Boston : Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1 Jan. 1970, archive.org/details/frankensteincomp0000shel_w9l1. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

Levine, George. “The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel.” Google Books, University of California Press, books.google.com/books/about/The_Endurance_of_Frankenstein.html?id=tYxHX1jVYlIC. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

“Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: A Routledge Study Guide and Sourcebook.” Routledge & CRC Press, www.routledge.com/Mary-Shelleys-Frankenstein-A-Routledge-Study-Guide-and-Sourcebook/Morton/p/book/9780415227322. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

Shelley. “Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.” Project Gutenberg, 8 Sept. 2025, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/84. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism, seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/GardosBalint/gayatri_spivak_three_womens_texts_and_a_critique_of_imperialism.pdf. Accessed 01 Nov. 2025.

Thank you...!!! 

Be learners.